Considered and
decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Shumaker, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E
D O P I N I O N

ROSS, Judge

In this appeal
from an order addressing multiple motions following entry of a
marital-dissolution judgment, Michael Martinez argues that the district court
erred by denying, deferring, or failing to rule on his motions. He also challenges the imposition of attorney
fees and a condition requiring him to pay the fees before the district court
will accept future motions from him. Because
the district court did not rule on Martinez's motions directed to the county
and imposed too broad of a condition limiting future motions, we remand on those
issues. But because Martinez failed to adequately brief his
asserted errors, we deem the other matters waived and affirm the district
court.

FACTS

In March 2006 the
district court dissolved Michael Martinez's marriage. Martinez
received joint legal custody of his minor children, but no physical custody. The court ordered him to pay monthly child
support and maintenance. Only one of the
Martinezes' children was an unemancipated minor at the time of the events
relevant on appeal.

Soon after the
district court entered its judgment, Martinez
filed a series of motions. In March 2006
he moved for joint physical custody, removal of the district court judge, and a
new trial.He also asserted violations of his right
to parenting time.In April he asserted that the March 2006
judgment was unconstitutional. He moved
the court to order his ex-wife to take their son to counseling and give him
certain property, to order Washington County to repay him funds he contributed
to the custody evaluation, and to order the county to allow him access to its files.In
May the district court denied the motions, finding that he failed to support
them on any legal basis. The court
noted, however, that he could refile his motions related to the county if he
properly served the county. About two
weeks later, Martinez moved the court to order sole or joint physical custody
of their son, to require his ex-wife to sign a travel-authorization form
permitting their son to travel out of the country with him in 2007, to require
her to return certain property, to require the county to allow him access to
the county court services' materials, to order a copy of court services'
custody file, to deny income withholding, and, presumably only after granting
those requests, to recuse from the case.In June Martinez submitted a proposed order
to show cause to the court, seeking a contempt finding.In July the district court
denied the motions to modify custody, to require counseling, to return
property, and to remove the judge.The court ordered income withholding
after finding that Martinez
had not fulfilled his child-support and maintenance obligations for April, May,
and June.The court deferred deciding the
travel-authorization motion and ordered Martinez
to pay attorney fees.The court conditioned acceptance of
future motions from Martinez on his payment of the fees.

Martinez appeals from the July 2006 order,
arguing that the district court erroneously denied, deferred, or failed to
decide his motions. He also challenges
the imposition of attorney fees and the prohibition of future motions until he
pays.

D E C I S I O N

Michael Martinezraises 11 issues in his appellate
brief to this court, but he fails to present any factual or legal argument to
support his assertions of error. He does
not cite a single statute, rule, or case.
He simply states that he filed motions and that the 457-page appendix to
his brief supports his claims. We will
not review an issue in the absence of adequate briefing. State
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480,
480 (Minn.
1997). As Minnesota appellate courts have
long recognized, "[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not
supported by any argument or authorities in appellant's brief is waived and
will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere
inspection." Schoepke v. Alexander Smith
& Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (1971). Generally, no prejudicial error is obvious
here. We therefore deem the majority of
Martinez's issues waived and affirm the district court. But we briefly address two concerns that
are obvious from our review of the record: the failure of the district court to
address Martinez's motions related to the county and the condition limiting
future motions.

The district court
did not rule on Martinez's
motions demanding access to the county's files.
At the motion hearing, the court questioned whether Martinez had served
his motions on the county. Martinez correctly stated
that he had filed two affidavits of service.
But in an apparent oversight while deciding Martinez's many other
motions, the district court did not address these motions in its order. We remand for the district court to consider
them.

We next address the district court's requirement
that Mr. Martinez pay Ms. Martinez's attorney fees before filing
future motions. We review this type of
condition for an abuse of discretion. See In re Burns, 542 N.W.2d 389, 390(Minn. 1996) (reviewing
district court order restricting party's communications with court for abuse of
discretion). Although the condition is essentially
fitting in light of the multiple baseless motions Martinez filed in the three
months following the court's judgment, we find that the condition is too broad
because it precludes potentially legitimate motions bearing on the welfare of
the Martinezes' minor child or otherwise relating to dissolution. Conditions restricting communication with the
court may be acceptable, but they must provide some opportunity for necessary
and appropriate motions. See id. (upholding order restricting
communications with court when court provided litigant opportunity to show
cause why restriction should not be enforced). We therefore remand to
the district court to modify the condition accordingly.